Ongoing Fusion Research: Progress on Thick-Liquid Protected IFE Power Plant Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
First, I would like to thank Dr. Wayne Meier, the former Fusion Energy Division (FED) Chair and the 2002-2003 officers and members of the Executive Committee for their effort over the past year in helping FED move forward. I would also like to welcome the new officers and members of the Executive Committee, in particular Dr. Jake Blanchard as Vice-Chair and Dr. Jeff Latkowski as Secretary/Treasurer. In my first message as Chair of the Fusion Energy Division of the American Nuclear Society (ANS), I would like to address a number of topics ranging from national and international fusion developments to the latest news on FED, specifically: the ITER status, the Department of Energy (DOE) FY04 Fusion Budget, FESAC, ANS Division Metrics, and other FED news including TOFE. ITER The US is currently in negotiation to rejoin ITER. With the interest expressed by Korea and China to join ITER, there are now seven parties at the negotiation table: Canada, China, the European Union (EU), Japan, Korea, the Russian Federation and the US. The negotiations are being pursued over a series of meetings at three levels: the Senior
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".